It seems really bad form to take away the only option (it is the only option when using net/url, right?) existing code has for using ssl in order to provide a new way that isn't even something we consider the final say.
No one seems to be actually taking the position of wanting to scuttle the unitized interface, but if someone were to, I think a survey of planet would be in order. Robby On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > Three minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote: >> +1 to that sentiment. >> >> I think this whole conversation is meant to be about how do we best >> get from here to there. The question pending is how much is it >> reasonable to break code that might use more obscure parts of the >> current api. I'm taking the relatively hard-line stance that we >> should not break any of it (even without really knowing how much of >> it exists), partly just because I think preserving backwards >> compatibility (esp. for core libraries) is important and partly >> because there is not yet a authoritative response of the form "well, >> please just go use this well-designed library instead" available >> yet. > > FWIW, I'm not convinced by the first point -- especially given that > it's about a unitized interface in net/*, and I'd like to see them all > go away together with undusting some of the code. > > But I am fine with hacking around it given the second point. > > -- > ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: > http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
